Ex. 211

[vastor]

Salve,

I cannot understand the grammar of one of these sentences; specifically:
Vêrô, sed iî recûsâvêrunt frûmentum dare

Two problems; The nominative plural demonstrative 'ii'. It must be the personal pronoun 'they' because of the lack of agreeing noun which is a requirement of a demonstrative adjective. But, it's entirely unnecessary considering the subject has already been formerly established (townsmen), and the verb provides the person and number satisfactorily. Furthermore, the key translation includes an inexplicably objective pronoun 'him':

Yes, but they refused to give him grain.

Secondly, should the phrase 'to give grain' be interpreted as the direct object of the verb recuso as if it was a nominal phrase?

[thesaurus]

Salve,

I cannot understand the grammar of one of these sentences; specifically:
Vêrô, sed iî recûsâvêrunt frûmentum dare

Two problems; The nominative plural demonstrative 'ii'. It must be the personal pronoun 'they' because of the lack of agreeing noun which is a requirement of a demonstrative adjective. But, it's entirely unnecessary considering the subject has already been formerly established (townsmen), and the verb provides the person and number satisfactorily. Furthermore, the key translation includes an inexplicably objective pronoun 'him':

Yes, but they refused to give him grain.

Secondly, should the phrase 'to give grain' be interpreted as the direct object of the verb recuso as if it was a nominal phrase?

Without being familiar with the context, it seems like a mistake: "ii" should be "ei," which would match the answer key, "they refused to give grain to him."

And I'd say "to give grain" is the object of recuso, though I understand it more easily by thinking of it in terms of "recuso + infinitive."

[vastor]

Thanks thesaurus, it makes sense now.